Just write a little blurb about how 9/11 was an inside job,the new Arizona immigration law is racist and Bush,Cheney and Rumsfeld should be extradited to The Hague on war crimes charges.The management will see that it's canceled.

Theres been talks about how horrible and disastrous Arizonas new immigration law, which has been described as making it a crime to be an illegal immigrant, but now theres something even more radical on the horizon. Representative Duncan Hunter has expressed his support of deporting the children of illegal immigrants. Yes, his solution is to get rid of all the so-called anchor-babies along with their parents.

I can hear the cries of people protesting this radical idea of enforcing our existing laws with the punishments already proscribed for them. Its truly amazing what a little lack of reading comprehension coupled with an inability to think in terms of logic can do to people. The first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, which would obviously be brought up, says he following:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall
make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The capitalized portion is quite key here, the AND is a disjunction operator; speaking in the abstract notion of sets [think Venn diagrams] it is the intersection of two sets and NOT the union thereof. So, we must understand what subject to the jurisdiction thereof means. The thereof is obviously referring to the United States, so the people in question need to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Jurisdiction means, simply, legal power. So we are left with the group of people that are both born in the United States and who are subject to its legal power

Are illegal aliens subject to the legal power of the United States? Some people would, in an attempt for humor or perhaps just to be jerks, say Only if they get caught. But lets think about this for a bit; if someone is not subject to the legal powers of the US then they could do illegal things with impunity quite literally getting away with murder. [And some do, that is perhaps the thing that most sparked Arizonas adoption of the aforementioned immigration law.]

But we have some illegal immigrants in jail, right? So that means theyre under the United States legal powers, right? Unfortunately not. Just because a jury acquits someone who is later found to be guilty of that crime does not give the government license to prosecute him again for that crime does not mean that because that individual got away with it does not mean that ALL future findings of guilt of that sort of crime are invalid. Likewise, just because one illegal immigrant gets away with it does not mean that ten, twenty, a thousand, a million, or more should also get away with it; to adopt such a position would utterly undermine any and all conception of the rule of law.

In a similar manner, just because one, two, fifty, or a thousand are caught does not mean that they are, as a group, subject to the laws of the United States. Especially if you talk to Border Patrol personnel and hear about people that have been caught multiple times and sent back; yes there IS a lot of repeat offenders in the illegal immigrant demographic.

So, as you can see neither determination of subject to the jurisdiction is intuitive; as neither work well at all. But lets look at the effects of the determinations thereof, if the anchor babies are determined to qualify as citizens then the state has two options when deporting the parents: either send the American-citizen child with them [to avoid breaking up families], or to make the child a Ward of the State [to avoid exiling American citizens who have broken no law]. Neither of those will be good on the political front; if you avoid breaking up the family you are [in effect] abandoning him and abridging ALL his rights as a Citizen. However, if you forbid the illegal immigrants the custody of their biological child you are cruel and heartless.

In the case of non-qualification then the whole family is deportable and can be deported as a single unit. This does contain the distasteful contradiction that the deportation thereof IS the subjugation of those involved to the legal power of the united states.

Is there a solution that doesnt involve a contradiction? Yes; but you wont like it. People will call the idea everything from fascist to heartless to insane to regressive. The answer is a simple reading of the Thirteenth amendment, which says in its first section, the following:
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, EXCEPT AS A PUNISHMENT FOR CRIME WHEREOF THE PARTY SHALL HAVE BEEN DULY CONVICTED, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Thats right, make the punishment for being an illegal immigrant into slavery/involuntary-servitude for some definite length of time [unlike felons being disbarred guns for life, even after serving their sentence]. Perhaps the length of time in the US illegally or the amount of money and services received from the taxpaying citizen should be used to calculate the length of the servitude. This DOES solve the problem of either breaking up families or wrongfully exiling American citizens but many will find the idea too distasteful to bear.

30
posted on 05/01/2010 2:45:09 PM PDT
by OneWingedShark
(Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)

YES!!! In fact, when I was actually participating I would still be away months at a time. Just getting distracted with life outside the "net". You know? Now I have been off here for probably 4 months now... still able to log in. That is expected, Jim runs this fairly professionally. I have NEVER had a web-community membership just "Expire". Plus, I don't like the idea of having to get kicked off... should be something practical and maybe even cough normal in the option of leaving. HA!

34
posted on 05/01/2010 2:46:41 PM PDT
by CourtneyLeigh
(Why can't all of America be Commonwealth?)

The people who are saying you should just go away are correct. I’ve been here since 98 and I don’t get invitations to come here. I just do it on my own. If I left nobody would miss me (some might celebrate).

FR is not something you have to “keep up with” in the same way as you might have to do the dishes or sweep the floor. Just log off and don’t come back. It’s easy.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.